Introduction
The principle of handing over responsibilities within the English legal system allows approved individuals to pass specific powers to others. This principle is often used within the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), helping manage its large workload. However, Castle v Crown Prosecution Service [2014] EWHC 587 set clear boundaries on this practice, especially regarding prosecution decisions. This judgment stresses that assigned prosecutors must themselves carry out the Full Code Test in particular situations, protecting the fairness of the prosecution process. The case shows that while everyday tasks may be handed over, key duties needing judgment must stay with approved individuals.
Handing Over Responsibilities within the CPS Structure
The Crown Prosecution Service, as the main public prosecution body in England and Wales, handles many cases. To address this, the CPS works through a layered system with different levels of authority. Handing over tasks is key to this system, letting senior prosecutors assign work to junior staff. This supports effective case handling. Castle explains allowed practices, separating routine tasks from central prosecution duties.
The Full Code Test and the Boundaries of Handing Over Tasks
The Full Code Test, described in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, is central to prosecution decisions. This two-part test checks whether evidence strongly supports a conviction and whether prosecution matches public interest. Castle states that applying this test, especially the public interest step, needs careful review of case details and prosecution judgment. The decision confirms this task cannot be given to unapproved staff, such as police officers or legal assistants.
The Details and Decision in Castle
In Castle, the claimant argued that a police officer’s decision to charge broke the rule from R (on the application of Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] 1 AC 345, which requires prosecutors to personally apply the Full Code Test. The High Court agreed, stating that letting non-prosecutors decide charges in complex cases weakens the process. The court confirmed that while police collect evidence, the CPS alone holds the power to prosecute.
Effects and Practical Steps for Prosecution Work
The Castle decision greatly affects prosecution practice. It makes clear that approved prosecutors must keep control over key decisions. This requires exact rules on allowed task-handling, ensuring support work does not block the Full Code Test. The case shows the need for strong CPS methods to maintain these standards, keeping public trust in fair prosecutions.
Separating Allowed Task-Handling from Wrong Transfer of Power
Castle draws clear lines between acceptable task-handling and wrong transfers. Routine jobs like preparing case summaries may go to support staff, but main duties needing judgment, such as applying the Full Code Test, must stay with approved prosecutors. This protects the process by ensuring trained individuals make decisions.
Conclusion
Castle v Crown Prosecution Service [2014] EWHC 587 sets firm rules on boundaries for handing over tasks in prosecutions. The judgment confirms that central functions like the Full Code Test must be done by approved prosecutors, not unapproved staff. This keeps prosecution fairness by ensuring decisions are made by legally approved experts. By clarifying task-handling rules, Castle strengthens the framework for prosecution decisions in the English legal system, matching principles from Purdy. This ensures the CPS remains a responsible public prosecution body.
